Yes, because "caustic" just means "capable of burning, corroding, or destroying living tissue." Both bases and acids can be caustic if they're strong enough.
I hate English. When I received my Chemical Engineering degree we would never even consider using caustic in this fashion as it's dangerous to be imprecise in your linguistic choices, especially when dealing with chemicals! I have looked it up and you're absolutely correct, but in any industry or educational setting, I've not once come across this. I will reiterate, I hate English. :)
These kinds of quizzes usually fill in the lats letters (here, -ic) for you, so you don't have to type them. So... what's up with this one? (Those precious extra tenths of a second might come in handy someday...)
Prolific was just sitting there right behind my ability to produce the word. I knew what I wanted started with a "P", but just couldn't get my brain to recall it. Had almost 2 minutes straight of just being frozen by that one word.
Taking these quizzes (many of them multiple times) it is fascinating how sometimes I can recall these things instantly, sometimes after a little bit and sometimes it just won't come before the time ends. And it varies from day to day, topic to topic.
Long story short, our brains are simply an enigma.
An agnostic is not uncertain about the existence of God. Agnostics are certain that the existence of God is unknowable. Science uses the laws of the natural world to create tests with repeatable results. By definition, supernatural things are not bound by the laws of the natural world, so there is no way to force supernatural things to reveal themselves. Their existence is untestable and, therefore, undisprovable, so agnosticism is the only logical position for a scientist. To be convinced of the non-existence of something that can't be disproved is as unscientific as being convinced of something that can't be proved. Since God can neither be proved nor disproved, atheism and faith are equally ridiculous; science can't have a position. Saying that agnostics are uncertain about the existence of God makes it sound like we're on the fence or hedging when, in fact, we've taken the only logical position. The truth is unknowable, hence a (not) + gnostikos (having knowledge).
When I say that I'm agnostic, I don't mean that I don't personally know if God exists. I mean that I don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows, because nobody can know. It's not saying that I don't have an opinion because I don't care enough to form one. I devoted the first few decades of my life to finding the truth and determined that it was unknowable. A correct definition for agnostic is "Belief that the existence of God is unknowable".
I'm just telling you (and Quizmaster) what agnostic means.
Just out of curiosity, though, how do you propose to determine if God exists? I'll grant that supernatural beings could hypothetically choose to reveal themselves but, if they don't, how can we make them?
atheism is not just another faith, it is the lack thereof. i dislike when people describe themselves as agnostic rather than atheist as they’re not alternatives, they’re two different axes on the plane, one describing knowledge and one describing belief. since scientifically speaking, you can never know anything for certain, everyone is an agnostic to some degree so it’s a meaningless distinction. however until you believe a god exists you are an atheist, so if you don’t know then you are an atheist. everyone who describes themselves as an agnostic is not wrong but needs to recognise their position on the theism axis as well as the gnosticism axis - and i suspect most ‘agnostics’ might put themselves at the atheist end, since if you’re not sure then you probably don’t believe.
I'm an atheist, which means I lack belief in gods. I don't believe in unicorns either, but that doesn't make me illogical. If I encountered irrefutable evidence e.g. repeatable phenomena like we all start seeing and recording unicorns -- not blurs -- and find unicorn skeletons etc., then I would happily change my mind. Until then, I'm happily aunicorn, and still an atheist, until I encounter evidence to the contrary.
I'd be willing to guess that prehistoric and archaic are both more recognizable or commonly known terms. But (a) they were both toward the very end of the quiz whereas diuretic was just past the half-way point, so people going slow or getting distracted and not finishing is a factor; and (b) just because a word is more recognizable or commonly known does not mean it will be more frequently recalled from a definition - particularly so when time crunch might have been more at play for the lesser frequently guessed two.
I tried endemic and nationalistic for the opposite of international. I can see nationalistic is a differnt type of word, national would be an exact opposite, but aren´t there sentences where it could work? (Not an english speaker, so I can't be certain).
For endemic I think it is a narrower definition but could still be substituted in certain cases.
I strongly (how do you get bold or italics in comments?) disagree with 'prehistoric' - hieroglyphics describe things that happened before the invention of writing. There are all kinds of publications that describe 'prehistoric' events in written form. Also is heriatic and demotic.
Taking these quizzes (many of them multiple times) it is fascinating how sometimes I can recall these things instantly, sometimes after a little bit and sometimes it just won't come before the time ends. And it varies from day to day, topic to topic.
Long story short, our brains are simply an enigma.
Just out of curiosity, though, how do you propose to determine if God exists? I'll grant that supernatural beings could hypothetically choose to reveal themselves but, if they don't, how can we make them?
"Doubtful or uncertain about the existence or demonstrability of God or other deity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is not known or knowable with any certainty."
He stays up all night, wondering if there’s a dog…
I know it's not current, but I thought of it before the correct answer
For endemic I think it is a narrower definition but could still be substituted in certain cases.
Anyway they are just suggestions.
I tried "hypersonic" instead of supersonic. Shouldn't that count as well?